The assorted musings of Hugo Schwyzer: a progressive Anabaptist/Episcopalian Democrat (but with a sense of humor), a community college history and gender studies professor, animal rights activist, ENFP Gemini, avid marathoner, aspiring ultra-runner, die-hard political junkie, and (still) the proud father of the most amazing chinchilla on God's green earth.

July 22, 2004

One more on Amy Richards, and "Choice for Men"

I've got a post percolating in my brain (by request, no less) on the subject of contemporary Christian men and their attitudes towards independent women. It will take a while to flesh out.

I've been thinking still more about men and abortion. Trish got me thinking with her post in response to my posts on Amy Richards. In Trish's final paragraph, she mentioned one particular men's rights outfit with which I wasn't familiar: Choice4Men, which seems to exist largely as an internet discussion group. She used C4M as an example of where many men might be in terms of the "men's rights in abortion" movement. Trish wrote:

As far as calling for men's rights in abortion, a quick reality check to that line of thought lies in looking at the misogynistic men's rights group Choice4Men and the backlash men's rights in abortion movement. This movement calls for men's rights to overshadow a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body. These men wish to control women's reproductive freedom, for their own benefit. The movement is about avoiding responsibility when men should take it and complaining about being "forced into daddyhood."

So I went and visited Choice for Men today, and got very sad. And angry. (Those emotions seem to constitute a theme this week!) I read through some of their letters and messages, and agree thoroughly they are misogynistic to the core, not to mention remarkably whiny. If you go to their site, you can read their statement of principles; I'll just quote the first two:Choice4Men is about the right to choose to be a parent. Or not.Choice4Men is about men who have been trapped into parenting without consent.

C4M is worried about men who have impregnated women who have chosen to keep the child, despite the fact that the man involved had no desire to become a father. (Hence the "trapped into parenting" line). I can't say I have even an iota of sympathy for these fellows.

I've been blunt this week. (Folks who believe in astrology would say it's because we're in Leo.) So let me continue to be straightforward:

Every man who ejaculates inside a woman, whether or not contraception is used, is signalling his willingness to become a father. If men are not ready and willing to raise a child conceived through an act of sex, they are morally responsible for refraining from sex. (I'll let my sisters make a similar case for women. I'm in enough trouble on that side of the fence already). A man who opposes abortion ought to be certain of his partner's feelings before he engages in sexual intercourse with her, lest she get pregnant and choose to abort the child that he may well wish to care for. A pro-life man whose girlfriend chooses abortion can hardly blame her for her "choice". Similarly, a man who has no wish to become a father has no right to complain when biology works as nature intended.

This is not to say that I think sex should be purely for procreation, nor even that sex ought always be confined to marriage. But those who believe that heterosexual intercourse can be fully divorced from procreation do so at the risk of both their own heartache and the destruction of innocent life. I have no desire to "control women" by making them breeding machines. But I see no reason why feminism must be linked to the right to have sexual intercourse without responsibility. The mystery and thrill and excitement and wonder and intimacy of sexual intercourse are ultimately linked to its procreativity, even when the folks engaged in it are unready and unwilling to become parents. We need to get this message across to our sons as well as to our daughters.

I still think what Amy Richards did was evil. That doesn't mean I am unsympathetic to her! Reading all the comments at various places (including here at my blog), I have a real sense of how overwhelmed she surely must have been. I'm choosing to be charitable and believe that she did what she thought best for her surviving child. But I can understand and sympathize with the reasons for the choice while simultaneously condemning the choice! Compassion does not equal support; empathy does not equal endorsement.

I have no sympathy for the guys at Choice4Men. Not only do I find their irresponsibility appalling, I find their sense of their own victimhood to be repellant. (Maybe it's my upbringing, but there's something about men who complain about mistreatment at the hands of women that turns my stomach.) But the boys at C4M and Amy Richards have something in common: they are convinced that they are entitled to enjoy sexual intercourse without accepting its inevitable attendant consequences. The former wish to change the laws in order to avoid their responsibilities, the latter used medicine to terminate hers.

Comments

I agree, the boys of C4Men have more than a little in common with Amy Richards. My only question is why you distinguish the two at all. I guess I'm too much of a liberal to accept that it's OK for one sex but not the other to be whiny, self-absorbed and irresponsible. Both sides need to grow up.

With regards to the first boldface... what you leave for your sisters to make a case for is unnecessary. What is good for the gander is good for the goose! This should be obvious and pointless in mentioning.

Hugo, take it easy on the boys, give them time to become men. The girls that started feminism no doubt had much hatred for men and were probably whiny! When the women took over and the issues fermented, being ready for discussion, change started to take place. Hopefully soon these boys will mature into men and be able to discuss intelligently with the women.

I would argue that heterosexual intercourse cannot at all be divorced from procreation!

Hugo, please do NOT take it "easy on the boys." It's that very thing of being easy on the boys that has contributed so heavily to cases like Kobe Bryant and other athletes who have used their prowess on the athletic field plus the winks by coaches and faculty members as well as the "well, boys will be boys!" crap that's gone on for years in order to use women like commodities. Then they carve another notch on their sexual gun belt and move on to the next. Yes, girls are at fault for thinking they will be the one to catch and keep such a "prize" and be able to live the high life pro athlete's salaries can bring but it doesn't happen. But the guys won't let the girls lose that dream.

I agree that if a guy has sex with a girl, it should be with the intent that if pregnancy results, they will accept their responsibilty and help to raise that child. But how often do you really see that happening? There are some who do -- but I'd venture to guess more don't. Even if 50% do, that's still 50% who just walk off into the sunset and go on to the next flower like a bee searching for honey.

So don't let the boys off the hook. Girls get the blame for being "loose" and "asking for it" -- so why shouldn't guys get their share of the blame?

I know I have problems with articulation, which is why I am spending my time here. "Boys" was meant to imply those of C4M and groups with similar and different grievances on the subject of male rights with regard to parenting, abortions, etc. We do have rights don’t we?

Regarding your next post, I could help you out with traditional Christian men and independent women! Boy howdy...But I guess you know that story already.

Abortion...it sure seems like women choose to bear more of the guilt than men. I know I sure do. The father told me "he was not ready to be a father again" and couldn't be bothered to pick me up from the clinic. I'm sure many think I got what I deserved, but to some men, women are a throw-away commodity. Did I mention that this is the father of my five-year old who behaved this way? In his view, children are also throw-aways.

I don't understand why the Amy Richards article was written in the first place - it only makes her look bad, and misrepresents the realities of multiple pregnancies. Selective reduction in multiple pregnancies is usually done out of concern for the viability of the pregnancy and/or of the woman. It is rarely done out of mere preference, as the story suggests. The medical facts of the article seem sketchy to me (there is no such thing as a 'low risk' triplet pregnancy). Additionally, equating "selective reduction", "murder", and "abortion" is a poor equation that conflates many heartbreaking decisions and complicated issues. I wish Amy Richard had not put her story out there for others to judge and assess - I wish she had protected her own dignity and privacy.

I also have never heard of a woman selecting which fetuses to reduce. Normally the largest and healthiest fetus is retained (based on ultrasound or genetic testing). This article makes it sound like elective cosmetic surgery. I just don't get it. I've been thinking and thinking about it, and the medical facts just don't add up. Not that I'm a medical expert, but I do know quite a bit about multiple pregnancies.

Hugo,
Again you're in the wrong or at least you are being consistent, consistenly anti-male.The issue here is women that seduce a man into having sex while claiming that she has some sort of birth control. Then that's the problem, men tricked into a situation that they do not want, fatherhood. Look at the reality of a sexual situation and you'll understand most men would proceed with sex if they understood that the woman was protected. Hugo, if you could only get in touch with your male side...

Hugo,
There is a reason you get bigger hits after being on Glenn's show. Glenn is much more popular and rational and thus has a much larger following. The problem I see in your analysis is that you assume people(yes women too!) engage in sex for pleasure and not just for procreation.

Um, whoareyou, I know, it was a dreadful assumption I made. Others will surely correct me. Glenn has a radio show and a nationally syndicated column; I have a little blog that I play with in my spare time. I don't think he and I are in the same league!

What we talk about when we talk is about generalizations. We don't talk about the exception. When you bring in an exception your being a cheat. Most women trick men into pregnancy. If a man does it it is because he wants marriage and a family. When women do it she wants a monthly child mortgage payment and that's what, my friend, you support.

I have no disrespect for Women its simply the systems hypocricy that has created the injustice.

I've always been uncomfortable with premarital sex and eventually decided against it all together. The predictable result was that I went through years and years of losing relationships and having relationships never get off the ground over this issue. I had to watch people I love walk away. This problem only got worse as I got older. Finally I realized I would just need to trust someone if I ever hoped to have a wife and family. I got to know a girl for two years, we became best friends, we talked endlessly about my desire not to have out of wedlock children and not to have children until we were financially stable. She completly agreed and worked tirelessly to reassure me that she agreed, that in the case of a suprize pregnancy she would not keep a child until we both were ready. She told me she agreed that a Man should never be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. Well, a lot of good all that did me. Sure enough she's pregnant and is keeping the child. Her reasoning? She felt I wasn't completly committed to the relationship so everything we talked about could be forgetten and that having a child might strengthen my commitment.

If you had some sincere suggestions (sleeping with men is not sincere) I'd be very interested in hearing them.

Trish: This movement calls for men's rights to overshadow a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body.

This is such an obvious and intentinal distortion of their position that it hardly merits a response but here I go anyway. They have absolutely no desire to tell a Women what to do with he bodu (they are pro-choice). What they say is simply that it is her choice and because of that if the Man does not wish to be a father they should not be held resonsible for the emotional and financial obligations of the Women's sole choice. Want to keep the child? Choice4men says thats fine, want to abort, fine -just don't hold a Man responsible for your decision if hes made it clear he doesn't want kids.